Gujarat High Court
Jitendrabhai @ Jitubhai Natvarbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/180/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 180 of 2025
==========================================================
JITENDRABHAI @ JITUBHAI NATVARBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, does not press this application qua applicant No.1. Hence, present application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant No.1 - Jitendrabhai @ Jitubhai Natvarbhai Parmar.
[1.0] By way of this appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, the applicant No.2 has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11211045240087 of 2024 registered with Sayla Police Station, Surendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 337, 354, 507, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3(1)(R), 3(2)(5) and 3(2) (5A) of the Atrocities Act and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.
[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that applicant No.2 has nothing to do with the offence. He is not named in FIR. While recording statement of other co-accused, his name is surfaced, wherein it is alleged that, accused No.1 to 4 after making assault, went to the house of the applicant, at that time, whatever the overtact is attributed to applicant No.1., who is arrested. Role of the applicant is that, he has only administered Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Feb 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 25 23:16:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/180/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined threats, except this no role is attributed to the applicant. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Mr. Chan has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 and contended that, the applicant has not uttered any abusive word/s and therefore, the provisions of Atrocities Act are not attracted. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow present application.
[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the accused including the applicant have beaten the complainant's husband and hurled abusive language. Though the applicant is not named in the FIR, his name has been surfaced during investigation. After commission of offence, another complaint is registered against the present applicant by the complainant. Prima facie involvement of the applicant is there. Hence, if he grants bail, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration.
[3.1] Ms. Vaniya, learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the application and submitted that, the applicant is having 13 antecedents and is habitual offender and strong person. He was very much presence in the commission of offence. He very well aware that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste, abused relating to the caste and insulted in public. Even under the Atrocities Act and considering bar under Section 18 of the Act, no case is made out for anticipatory bail.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Feb 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 25 23:16:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/180/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) Applicant is not named in FIR.
(2) In aid of Section 3(2)(5a) of the Act, he has been arraigned as an
accused.
(3) Role of the applicant is that, along with accused Jitendra, he has
administered threats to the complainant.
(4) Whatever the allegations of assault on the complainant, are against
accused Nos.1 to 4. However, the injured is out of danger. (5) On bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that, accused Nos.1 to 4 molested the wife of the complainant and made an assault on her husband. The applicant has not beaten or caused injury. (6) One more aspect is required to be noted that, in the first statement of the complainant, name of the applicant is not revealed, but in the second statement, name of the applicant is stated. Considering the ground of frivolity, application deserves consideration. (7) Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Feb 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 25 23:16:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/180/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined (8) Merely having 13 past antecedents is not a ground to refuse bail,
especially considering that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[4.1] Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr, reported in 024 INCS 625, meaning of the expression "intentional insult" explained in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act as under:-
"The words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989."
Considering the above ratio, prima facie, offence under the Atrocities Act are not attracted.
[5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.
[6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11211045240087 of 2024 registered with Sayla Police Station, Surendranagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Feb 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 25 23:16:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/180/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28/02/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change her/his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 439(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
[7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
[8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Feb 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 25 23:16:49 IST 2025